The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

In spite of humans' 'improvement modules', they are not evolving. And this is because evolving is one thing, and trying to evolve is quite another.

In spite of all the improvements in technology, health, wealth, etc, man is not evolving. He's fundamentally the same being that he's been since the Stone Age. In fact, if anything he's slightly devolved - he's become weaker, more dependent, more out-of-tune with nature, and never has its existence been on such a precarious footing as today....
[/quote]

Well the human body didn't evolve. I am perfectly sure that all toxines contained in the plants of nature, are more hazardous for us nowadays than for the prehistoric humans in the stone ages . Those were more resistant against those toxines (or as good as dead if not ). What really evolved is the knowledge about technology and not more. We do not even know if we are more sentinent nowadays than in aforetimes.

I expect that individual ants are weaker, more limited and more dependent than their more independent ancestors too. It seems that nests consisting of largely dependent conformists are far more powerful than their more independent peers.

Think of how eukaryotes defied the entire world's microbial population to build a lasting edifice on top of that simpler domain. Eukaryotic cells are completely dependent as compared with free swimming independent microbes, and they are also much more complex and sophisticated.

In spite of all the improvements in technology, health, wealth, etc, man is not evolving. He's fundamentally the same being that he's been since the Stone Age. In fact, if anything he's slightly devolved - he's become weaker, more dependent, more out-of-tune with nature, and never has its existence been on such a precarious footing as today....

Humans are no longer dependant on somatic evolution. We have social, scientific, technical and cultural evolution which moves minute by minute rather than generation by generation.

In spite of all the improvements in technology, health, wealth, etc, man is not evolving. He's fundamentally the same being that he's been since the Stone Age. In fact, if anything he's slightly devolved - he's become weaker, more dependent, more out-of-tune with nature, and never has its existence been on such a precarious footing as today....

Humans are no longer dependant on somatic evolution. We have social, scientific, technical and cultural evolution which moves minute by minute rather than generation by generation.

I'd rather say "can move minute by minute" otherwise your point is well made. Culture is the narratives that we tell ourselves to make plain to ourselves who we are. In some cases 'culture' is identical with 'religion'.

Religions are unlike cultures insofar as the religion interprets who we are according to what religious elites claim that the texts meant to their makers. Religions are like cultures insofar as they offer scope for social change when the religious elites interpret the texts according to what purpose they hold for living consumers and better cultural narrative. An example of the latter was Bishop Michael Curry's sermon at the recent royal wedding.

Some modern String theories assum at least 10 dimensions. So god has to have at least a 10 dimensional brain after JayP's theory if god ever existed. So nomal people think in 4 to 5 dimensions if we omit the mices postulated after douglas adams hitchikers guide through the galaxy.
So just just think of humans as a carbon based weirdo thinking to small dimensional to cope with it.

. An example of the latter was Bishop Michael Curry's sermon at the recent royal wedding.

I am happy to inform you that I've no idea what you are talking about here, as I regard monarchy as a cultural virus as toxic as the bubonic plague and managed to utterly avoid any contact with the cursed wedding.

. An example of the latter was Bishop Michael Curry's sermon at the recent royal wedding.

I am happy to inform you that I've no idea what you are talking about here, as I regard monarchy as a cultural virus as toxic as the bubonic plague and managed to utterly avoid any contact with the cursed wedding.

Well, let me tell you that sermon was a sensation, and self-described atheists now support Michael Curry's point of view and delivery.

Why are you so opposed to our favourite real life soap opera? If it's because the monarch and family are rich and privileged please remember that the present monarch and some of her relatives, besides their inherited wealth, also work for their livings. New media idols such as the newly wed royal couple promise to be future models of public service who will use the royal decor for good.

Privilege and advantage by virtue of birth is a stain on human culture.

Maybe I'm not as good a socialist as you however ascribed status of one sort or another is here to stay. I guess that you and I both approve of equality of opportunity such as free tertiary education for all, quality social housing, free health care, and freedom of thought, speech and association.

Does your socialism extend to equality of outcome? Not mine! If my socialism extended to equality of outcome I'd favour autocracy of the proletariat. I don't however like autocracy at all, whether it stems from proletariat, rich oligarchs, priests, or traditional aristocracy.
The British monarchy under Elizabeth II has managed despite human failings to work according to the principle of service, and that is its saving grace.

Privilege and advantage by virtue of birth is a stain on human culture.

Maybe I'm not as good a socialist as you however ascribed status of one sort or another is here to stay.

rubbish
that is an empty claim.

I guess that you and I both approve of equality of opportunity such as free tertiary education for all, quality social housing, free health care, and freedom of thought, speech and association.

indeed. And aristocracy is a continuing insult to that aspiriation.

Does your socialism extend to equality of outcome? Not mine! If my socialism extended to equality of outcome I'd favour autocracy of the proletariat. I don't however like autocracy at all, whether it stems from proletariat, rich oligarchs, priests, or traditional aristocracy.
The British monarchy under Elizabeth II has managed despite human failings to work according to the principle of service, and that is its saving grace.

I didn't vote for her.

The powerful serve. Service is the privilege and indicator of power.

The powerful serve themselves, and the powerless serve the powerful.
Wake up!

The powerful serve themselves, and the powerless serve the powerful.
Wake up!

Yes, but that is an unstable state of affairs. Oppressed people will rise up sooner or later.

The oppressed are in a continual state of rising up. But those that wave their flag for the Queen are dead to that process.
The very existence of the queen establishes as a fact of existence the notion that unfairness is fair.

The oppressed are in a continual state of rising up. But those that wave their flag for the Queen are dead to that process.
The very existence of the queen establishes as a fact of existence the notion that unfairness is fair.

I do understand and approve . My affection for the British monarchy is in despite of , and an exception to ,my approval of the principle of equality of opportunity.

The British monarch shows that she knows well that she has to work for her living and takes considered risks as she tries to maintain both duties and inherited privilege. The Duke of Edinburgh as a trained naval officer is possibly even more aware of his duties and place in the class hierarchy. The successor to the present queen had better be as circumspect as his father.

Another point in support of the British monarchy is that the Windsors have evolved a family tradition which to a significant degree suits British socialism and liberalism. Not every royal family has achieved this, obviously. So what could the British monarch be replaced with? Some dear president in a suit who has been schooled for sheer privilege with no heartfelt social duty attached? So be careful what you wish for.